General Election 2015

[Hampster Gull]

We were not left "in an absolute mess" at all. We had a highish level of borrowing, that's all. This "mess" is an absolute myth. And if we been left with the high levels of borrowing without any infrastructural improvements, then that would be a worry. But that's not the case at all. Schools were well funded and hospitals had better funding (but Labour had pretended and still do pretend that the problem with appalling NHS management doesn't exist).

Put it this way - take a look around you. There is infrastructure everywhere. Our level of public borrowing is a drop in the ocean compared to the value of the infrastructure all around you. It's like owning a £1m house with a hefty £300k mortgage. There's nothing wrong with that mortgage as long as you can service the debt. And that's the sort of position Labour left us in. It was not "an absolute mess", and certainly no more of a mess than leaving 915,000 people (that's an awful lot of people) dependent on food banks.

Under Labour we have experienceof no being able to pay our debts. At the time it was the biggest ask on IMF resources

 

[Simster]

Under Labour we have experienceof no being able to pay our debts. At the time it was the biggest ask on IMF resources

Yes, in the 1970s, nearly half a century ago. I agree. Equally, the NHS was built on Labour's watch. Without them, people would still be dying from tetanus after treading on a rusty nail - which is what happened to my great grandfather in the 20s apparently.

However, the plaudits Labour gain from the birth of the NHS are about as relevant as the fact they overspent in 1974. Now do you want me to list all the deficiencies we've seen under Tory governments since before most people on here were born, or shall we just stick to the more relevant facts - which are performance in the past decade or so, and policies for this election? I know what I'd prefer. And your nonsensical scaremongering to suit your argument has no place here.

 

[Bold Seagull]

From what i wrote it would be a silly of you to deduce Labour was to blame for the whole financial crisis. They had a material part to blame with lax regulation (Brown was competing with NY to be the most lax). But i would blame their greed or incompetence for the whole thing. I cannot coment if it would have been different if the tories had been in power, it may or may not have been. But spending beyond our means running up huge deficits, which is their forte, is a problem if not structurally addressed (as proved with us having to borrow from the IMF just to pay the bills inthe 1970s under Labour).

From '97 to '08 there wasn't a huge deficit prior to the global crash. In 2007 it was a lower deficit than the Tories had it in 1995.

 

[Simster]

From '97 to '08 there wasn't a huge deficit prior to the global crash. In 2007 it was a lower deficit than the Tories had it in 1995.

I wonder whether Hampster was writing letters into GullsEye in 1995 to tell anyone who would listen that the Tories had left the country "in an absolute mess"?

 

[Simster]

All these people talking as if Labour would be a DISASTER need to have a look at themselves.

I'm prepared to accept there might be a better alternative but what evidence is there that Labour would be a disaster? They governed for 13 years last time. I think if they had been a "disaster", they'd have been voted out a little earlier than a third election term FFS.

Meanwhile, under the coalition, the number of people in this country who are now dependent on food banks has risen alarmingly to 913,000. I think that's totally unacceptable. Clearly, cuts have been made, but this low hanging fruit has been at the expense of those who needed it most. And personally, I am not in the slightest bit convinced we needed this level of austerity in the first place.

Anyway, Labour have pledged to slash this dependency on food banks but still I'd like to see more detail as to how this will be achieved before I consider voting for them because their front bench don't fill me with confidence.

Rather than thumbsdown me for this post [MENTION=22389]bashlsdir[/MENTION], let's hear from you about how the increased dependency on food banks is a good thing? Or how Labour would be a disaster?

 

[Hampster Gull]

And your nonsensical scaremongering to suit your argument has no place here.

nonsensical? I an eminently qualified to talk in this field, but accept some will not agree with me.

Scaremongering? Really? You obviously disagree with what i am saying but many dont

no place here? Are you for real? Please put me forward for a ban Your Highness.

 

[Hampster Gull]

From '97 to '08 there wasn't a huge deficit prior to the global crash. In 2007 it was a lower deficit than the Tories had it in 1995.

Oh dear. It was based on an unsustainable tax tax. When the times are good you run a surplus, when the times are bad you run a deficit. Lost on many.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I wonder whether Hampster was writing letters into GullsEye in 1995 to tell anyone who would listen that the Tories had left the country "in an absolute mess"?

According to the FT the economy was "well into its third year of recovery"

 

[alfredmizen]

So hang on, interesting points there. They were responsible for leaving the mess in 2010, and yet you go onto say that we suffered more than other big nations during the financial crisis. So I am to deduce Labour were in fact to blame for the entire global financial crisis, or just Britain's recovery thereafter!? Many commentators suggest Britain actually led the way in its structured bailout plans whose model much of the developed world followed.

2008 would have happened whether Labour or Conservatives were in power. There is no way the Tories would have added any more regulatory powers than Labour did. You also conveniently omit the numerous financial crisis we experienced '79 to '97, the last of which devastated the country more than this one with interest rates souring past 15% and record levels of repossessions and negative equity.

Let us not pretend one has greatly out performed the other. Both have run the country for significant periods of the last 40 years, both have made big mistakes, and neither can actually claim to be more of a guardian of the economy than the other in real terms.

It didn't for your guide, this has been a far worse recession, and the reason for repossessions is the difference in interest rates, tell me, how long were rates at 15% for ?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Oh dear. It was based on an unsustainable tax tax. When the times are good you run a surplus, when the times are bad you run a deficit. Lost on many.

That mantra left us with millions of kids across the country learning in temporary classrooms as we went into the '90's. Spending on education at the start of the '90's was half what it was in the '70's and it showed. The Tories knew this and knew drastic spending was needed. I was part of a nationwide review of all school accommodation in 1995, and it demonstrated that our building infrastructure needed drastic investment and spending. This could be similarly applied across our public sector building stock and infrastructure.

You can't have a period of not spending anything, then look at your real estate and realise that 15 years of under investment means you have some serious repair bills on your hands. The economy is not just our balance sheet, as Simster said earlier we own a huge amount of actual stuff that needs looking after.

The same thing will happen again after this period. All these cuts will appear to be achieving their goal, but by 2020 say, we'll realise that many of our schools, hospitals, emergency services etc. will need investment after a period of neglect. That is what is lost on many.

 

[alfredmizen]

Rather than thumbsdown me for this post [MENTION=22389]bashlsdir[/MENTION], let's hear from you about how the increased dependency on food banks is a good thing? Or how Labour would be a disaster?

the 'dependency' on food banks is down to human nature, if it's offered , people will take it, no more , no less.

 

[Greyrun]

Oh dear. It was based on an unsustainable tax tax. When the times are good you run a surplus, when the times are bad you run a deficit. Lost on many.

Agreed, it amazes mean that some people on here think that debt interest of £1 billion pound a week twice the defence budget is okay,so many problems could be solved If we just halved the debt.Also is it fair that we hand this debt on to future generations

 

[Simster]

nonsensical? I an eminently qualified to talk in this field, but accept some will not agree with me.

Scaremongering? Really? You obviously disagree with what i am saying but many dont

no place here? Are you for real? Please put me forward for a ban Your Highness.

We're all qualified to talk in this field, but it would be useful if you could reign in the hyperbole and plain bullshit. You seem to have backtracked on this stupid idea that Labour left the country "in an absolute mess" in 2010, because clearly they didn't. They left a level of debt some were uncomfortable with, and the solution appears to have been to slash the benefit state which has unfortunately left many people in dire straights if those food bank figures are anything to go by.

And please, read what I wrote. I didn't say there was no place for you here, I said there was no place for your scaremongering clap trap on this thread. So wind your neck in, put your knickers back on, and refrain from attempting to take the moral high ground on me.

 

[Simster]

the 'dependency' on food banks is down to human nature, if it's offered , people will take it, no more , no less.

Words fail me.

That mantra left us with millions of kids across the country learning in temporary classrooms as we went into the '90's. Spending on education at the start of the '90's was half what it was in the '70's and it showed. The Tories knew this and knew drastic spending was needed. I was part of a nationwide review of all school accommodation in 1995, and it demonstrated that our building infrastructure needed drastic investment and spending. This could be similarly applied across our public sector building stock and infrastructure.

You can't have a period of not spending anything, then look at your real estate and realise that 15 years of under investment means you have some serious repair bills on your hands. The economy is not just our balance sheet, as Simster said earlier we own a huge amount of actual stuff that needs looking after.

The same thing will happen again after this period. All these cuts will appear to be achieving their goal, but by 2020 say, we'll realise that many of our schools, hospitals, emergency services etc. will need investment after a period of neglect. That is what is lost on many.

The bit I've highlighted in bold is what always seems to pass Tory cost cutting apologists by. Here is another analogy that explains the problem:

We have millions of miles of roads in this country. Several harsh winters lead to pot holes appearing, year on year. Fixing them appears expensive. However, we could always cut public spending by not fixing them.

Unfortunately though, this means that the country ends up paying a lot more because of the cost of blown tyres to people's cars, and the time cost associated with roads that mean we have to travel more slowly. And then of course, when we decide we can afford to fix the pot holes, we have to import pot hole fixers from abroad because we've put all our pot hole fillers out of business by not employing them for the previous few years, which is far more expensive to the country, not least because those British workers are now being paid to sit on the dole.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It didn't for your guide, this has been a far worse recession, and the reason for repossessions is the difference in interest rates, tell me, how long were rates at 15% for ?

Sept '88 interest rates reached 12% and didn't go back down to 10% to Sept '91. During that 3 year period, they went to 15% or higher from Oct '89 to Oct '90.

Then we had Black Wednesday and we dropped out of the ERM. Sept '92 interest rates went back up to 12%, however they did steadily fall over the coming months.

 

[Ernest]

Sept '88 interest rates reached 12% and didn't go back down to 10% to Sept '91. During that 3 year period, they went to 15% or higher from Oct '89 to Oct '90.

Then we had Black Wednesday and we dropped out of the ERM. Sept '92 interest rates went back up to 12%, however they did steadily fall over the coming months.

Under a Conservative government, still this myth goes round about their economic competence, Norman Lamont singing in the bath sums that up

 

[somerset]

Under a Conservative government, still this myth goes round about their economic competence, Norman Lamont singing in the bath sums that up

With interest rates strangled by the European financial entities, most countries had no choice,......the exit from the ERM prompted a steady reduction to manageable levels.

 

[Gwylan]

But spending beyond our means running up huge deficits, which is their forte, is a problem if not structurally addressed (as proved with us having to borrow from the IMF just to pay the bills inthe 1970s under Labour).

Simster has addressed 2010 but this myth also needs to be examined too. The UK had been borrowing from the IMF to meet shortfalls (or to pay its bills as HG puts it) since the Tory government of 1956, so it's not just a Labour phenomenon (see here for some detail)

Admittedly the 1976 crisis was a bigger scale of borrowing and for a longer period but that's an indication of the deep malaise in the UK economy at the time. However, Balogh, the chief economic adviser to the Wilson government suggested that applying to the IMF would probably be necessary in December 1975, just a couple of months after Wilson had his majority government. The idea that any government, Labour or otherwise, could reduce an economy to penury in just a few weeks is laughable. Balogh pinned the blame on the boom-bust policies of the Heath government - in particular on Barber.

It's true that Healey's talk of squeezing the rich until their pips squeak would have scared off investors and not helped the economy and it's true that the unions were pushing for inflation busting pay rises. But the Labour government was doing pretty well in bringing inflation down and the IMF loan provided some stability for the process.

The Labour government wasn't the total disaster that people seem to think it was. Thatcher won a narrow victory but that was almost certainly due to the levels of industrial action in the winter of that year (and the exceptionally harsh winter). Don't forget that opinion polls at the end of 1978 had Labour narrowly in the lead, scarcely a reflection of economic chaos

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is astonishing. 40% of new teachers quit within a year under a Tory watch. I dread to think how much money this chaos is costing us, and the effect it has on the children. It's a shocking figure.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/31/four-in-10-new-teachers-quit-within-a-year

 

[Deleted member 22389]

This is astonishing. 40% of new teachers quit within a year under a Tory watch. I dread to think how much money this chaos is costing us, and the effect it has on the children. It's a shocking figure.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/31/four-in-10-new-teachers-quit-within-a-year

It takes a special type of person to teach and be able to teach effectively and not crack under pressure. A lot depends on what school you end up at as well. If you have nightmare kids it makes the job even harder on top of the governments interference. Doesn't matter what party it is, they keep messing around with things and moving the goal posts. How about doing something simple and sticking to it, like asking the teachers what they need and keeping bloody politicians out of the classrooms.